Irreversible electroporation to bring initially unresectable locally advanced pancreatic adenocarcinoma to surgery: the IRECAP phase II study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the IRECAP study was to evaluate the rate of locally advanced pancreas cancer patients (LAPC) who could undergo R0 or R1 surgery after irreversible electroporation (IRE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: IRECAP study is a phase II, single-center, open-label, prospective, non-randomized trial registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03105921). Patients with LAPC were first treated by 3-month neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in order to avoid inclusion of either patients with LAPC having become resectable after chemotherapy or patients with rapid disease progression. In cases of stable disease, IRE was performed percutaneously under CT guidance. Surgery was planned between 28 and 90 days after IRE. Tumor specimens were studied to evaluate the resection margins (R0/R1/R2). RESULTS: Six men and 11 women were included (median age 61 years, range 37-77 years). No IRE-related death was observed. Ten patients (58%, 10/17) experienced 25 serious adverse events related to IRE. Four patients progressed between IRE and surgery and were excluded from surgery. Thirteen patients were finally operated, six withheld for pancreas resection, three for diffuse peritoneal carcinosis, two for massive vascular entrapment, and one for hepato-cellular carcinoma not diagnosed before surgery. Rate of R1-R0 was 35% (n = 6/17). Median overall survival was 31 months (95% CI; 4-undefined) for the six patients with R0/R1 resection and 21 months (95% CI; 4-25) for the 11 patients without resection or R2 resection (logrank p = 0.044). CONCLUSION: After neoadjuvant chemotherapy, IRE could provide R0 or R1 resection in 35% of LAPC, which seems to be associated with higher OS. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: After induction chemotherapy, stable locally advanced pancreatic cancers can be treated by irreversible electroporation, which could lead to a secondary 35% rate of R0 or R1 surgical resection which may be associated with a significantly higher overall survival. KEY POINTS: • In cases of unresectable LAPC (locally advanced pancreatic cancer), percutaneous irreversible electroporation (pIRE) is feasible (100% success rate of the procedure), but is associated with a 58% rate of grade 3-4 adverse events. • In patients with unresectable LAPC, pIRE could lead 35% of patients to R0-R1 surgical resection. • From IRE, median overall survival was 31 months (95% CI; 4-undefined) for the patients with R0/R1 resection and 21 months (95% CI; 4-25) for the patients without resection or R2 resection (logrank p = 0.044).

Left gastric vein embolization during TIPS placement for acute variceal bleeding has no effect on bleeding recurrence: Results of a multicenter study.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether concomitant left gastric vein embolization (LGVE) during transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) for acute variceal hemorrhage could reduce the risk of bleeding recurrence. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A national multicenter observational study was conducted in 14 centers between January 2019 and December 2020. All cirrhotic patients who underwent TIPS placement for acute variceal bleeding were included. During TIPS procedure, size of left gastric vein (LGV), performance of LGVE, material used for LGVE and portosystemic pressure gradient (PPG) before and after TIPS placement were collected. A propensity score for the occurrence of LGVE was calculated to assess effect of LGVE on rebleeding recurrence at six weeks and one year. RESULTS: A total of 356 patients were included (mean age 57.3 ± 10.8 [standard deviation] years; 283/356 [79%] men). Median follow-up was 11.2 months [interquartile range: 1.2, 13.3]. The main indication for TIPS was pre-emptive TIPS (162/356; 46%), rebleeding despite secondary prophylaxis (105/356; 29%), and salvage TIPS (89/356; 25%). Overall, 128/356 (36%) patients underwent LGVE during TIPS procedure. At six weeks and one year, rebleeding-free survival did not differ significantly between patients who underwent LGVE and those who did not (6/128 [5%] vs. 15/228 [7%] at six weeks, and 11/128 [5%] vs. 22/228 [7%] at one year, P = 0.622 and P = 0.889 respectively). A total of 55 pairs of patients were retained after propensity score matching. In patients without LGVE, the rebleeding rate was not different from those with LGVE (3/55 [5%] vs. 4/55 [7%], P > 0.99, and 5/55 [9%] vs. 6/55[11%], P > 0.99, at six weeks and one year respectively). Multivariable analysis identified PPG after TIPS placement as the only predictor of bleeding recurrence (hazard ratio = 1.09; 95% confidence interval: 1.02-1.18; P = 0.012). CONCLUSION: In this multicenter national real-life study, we did not observe any benefit of concomitant LGVE during TIPS placement for acute variceal bleeding on bleeding recurrence rate.

Efficacy of chest CT scan for COVID-19 diagnosis in a low prevalence and incidence region.

OBJECTIVES: Value of chest CT was mainly studied in area of high COVID-19 incidence. The aim of this study was therefore to evaluate chest CT performances to diagnose COVID-19 pneumonia with regard to RT-PCR as reference standard in a low incidence area. METHODS: A survey was sent to radiology department in 4 hospitals in an administrative French region of weak disease prevalence (3.4%). Study design was approved by the local institutional review board and recorded on the clinicaltrial.gov website (NCT04339686). Written informed consent was waived due to retrospective anonymized data collection. Patients who underwent a RT-PCR and a chest CT scan within 48 h for COVID-19 pneumonia suspicion were consecutively included. Diagnostic accuracy including the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of chest CT regarding RT-PCR as reference standard were calculated. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-nine patients had abnormal chest CT findings compatible with a COVID-19 pneumonia (26%, 129/487). Among the 358 negative chest CT findings, 3% (10/358) were RT-PCR positive. Chest CT sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value were respectively 87% (IC95: 85, 89; 69/79), 85% (IC95: 83, 87; 348/408), 53% (IC95: 50, 56; 69/129), and 97% (IC95: 95, 99; 348/358). CONCLUSIONS: In a low prevalence area, chest CT scan is a good diagnostic tool to rule out COVID-19 infection among symptomatic suspected patients. KEY POINTS: • In a low prevalence area (3.4% in the administrative area and 5.8% at mean in the study) chest CT sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing COVID-19 pneumonia were 87% and 85% respectively. • In patients with negative chest CT for COVID-19 pneumonia, the negative predictive value of COVID-19 infection was 97% (348/358 subjects). • Performance of CT was equivalent between the 4 centers participating to this study.